Hair loss is a common aesthetic and psychological concern globally, affecting both men and women across various age groups. Androgenetic alopecia, characterized by progressive hair thinning, accounts for over 90% of hair loss cases, particularly in men, and is influenced by both genetic predisposition and hormonal changes [1]. Hair transplantation has emerged as an effective intervention, with Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) gaining preference over traditional Follicular Unit Transplantation (FUT) due to its minimally invasive nature and reduced scarring [2]. FUE involves extracting individual follicular units from the donor area and transplanting them to balding regions, enhancing the natural appearance of hair regrowth. Over the past decade, FUE techniques have evolved significantly, largely due to technological advancements and increasing patient demand for natural results. Initial FUE procedures were performed manually, requiring considerable skill and precision, as follicular units had to be extracted one at a time with a punch tool [3]. Despite its effectiveness, the manual technique posed challenges, including longer operative times and increased risk of follicular damage due to mechanical handling [4]. These limitations prompted the development of motorized and robotic-assisted FUE techniques, designed to improve precision and efficiency, ultimately enhancing graft survival and reducing surgical time [5]. Robotic-assisted FUE, particularly, has revolutionized the field by providing automated assistance for graft extraction, improving accuracy and minimizing the variability associated with manual procedures. The use of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven robotics in FUE allows for precise follicle identification and extraction, potentially reducing follicular transection rates and improving the viability of transplanted grafts [6]. Studies have shown that robotic-assisted FUE not only achieves higher graft survival rates but also reduces postoperative complications, thereby improving patient satisfaction [7]. However, this approach is often limited by cost and availability, making it less accessible in low-resource settings where manual or motorized techniques are more feasible [8]. Motorized FUE, which uses power-assisted tools to extract grafts, has also gained popularity as a middle ground between manual and robotic techniques. This method provides increased speed and consistency, while being more affordable than robotic FUE. Research indicates that motorized FUE can reduce operative time by up to 30% compared to manual extraction, without compromising graft quality [9]. However, motorized FUE requires experienced surgeons to control the extraction depth and avoid damaging hair follicles, as improper handling can lead to higher follicle transection rates [10]. Comparative analyses of FUE techniques underscore the need for individualized approaches based on patient characteristics and surgeon expertise. While robotic FUE may yield optimal graft survival and patient satisfaction, motorized and manual FUE techniques offer viable alternatives in settings where resources or access to advanced technology may be limited [11]. Additionally, patient-specific factors such as skin type, hair density, and overall health play crucial roles in determining the appropriate FUE technique. Studies suggest that factors such as patient age, hair thickness, and scalp laxity can influence the success of FUE procedures, with personalized approaches being essential for optimal results [12]. Despite these advancements, the field continues to face challenges, particularly in managing patient expectations and achieving consistently high graft survival rates. While FUE has a high success rate, patient dissatisfaction often arises from unrealistic expectations regarding hair density and coverage. Educating patients on achievable outcomes and selecting suitable candidates remain crucial to the success of FUE procedures. Additionally, further research is needed to explore long-term outcomes across various FUE techniques to better understand the impact of these procedures on scalp health and graft survival over extended periods [13].

This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of robotic-assisted, motorized, and manual FUE techniques, focusing on operative efficiency, graft survival, and patient satisfaction. By evaluating outcomes across these methods, this research seeks to identify optimal approaches to FUE that cater to diverse patient needs, thus advancing best practices in hair restoration surgery.

Study Design: This study was a cross-sectional, comparative analysis of different FUE techniques—robotic-assisted, motorized, and manual—conducted in a single-center setting. The study aimed to compare the efficacy, patient satisfaction, and complication rates associated with each technique over a six-month follow-up period. Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board, and all participants provided written informed consent

Participants: The study recruited 80 adult participants diagnosed with androgenetic alopecia and scheduled for FUE hair transplantation. Inclusion criteria were individuals aged 25 to 55 years with moderate-to-severe hair thinning, adequate donor hair density, and willingness to undergo FUE. Exclusion criteria included previous hair transplant procedures, chronic scalp conditions, and contraindications for surgery (e.g., bleeding disorders).

Sampling and Group Allocation: Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups:

1.Robotic-assisted FUE Group (n = 27)

2.Motorized FUE Group (n = 26)

3.Manual FUE Group (n = 27)

Randomization was achieved using computer-generated random numbers. Allocation concealment was maintained to ensure unbiased group assignments.

Procedure: All FUE procedures were performed by experienced surgeons with proficiency in each technique. Standard protocols were followed, including preoperative scalp preparation and local anesthesia administration.

1. Robotic-assisted FUE: Follicular units were extracted using a robotic system equipped with AI-based algorithms to identify and extract grafts. This approach aimed to minimize transection rates and ensure consistent graft quality.
2. Motorized FUE: Power-assisted tools were used to extract follicular units. Surgeons controlled the depth and rotation speed of the punch to optimize extraction efficiency while preserving graft integrity.
3. Manual FUE: A manual punch tool was used for follicular extraction, relying on the surgeon’s skill and experience to minimize follicular damage.

Data Collection: Data were collected preoperatively and at follow-up intervals of 3 and 6 months postoperatively.

1. Operative Time: Recorded in minutes from initial incision to the completion of graft placement for each participant.
2. Graft Survival Rate:Calculated as the percentage of viable grafts three and six months post-surgery, assessed using trichoscopic analysis.
3. Postoperative Complications:Complications such as swelling, infection, folliculitis, and scarring were documented through physical examination and patient self-reports.
4. Patient Satisfaction:Measured using a standardized Likert scale questionnaire (1 = very dissatisfied, 5 = very satisfied) at three and six months post-surgery. The questionnaire assessed factors like appearance, density, and naturalness of the hair regrowth.

Data were analyzed using SPSS (Version 25.0). Continuous variables, including operative time and graft survival rate, were expressed as mean ± standard deviation and compared across groups using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests. Categorical variables, such as complication rates and patient satisfaction scores, were analyzed using Chi-square tests. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Ethical Considerations: The study adhered to the Declaration of Helsinki guidelines. Ethical clearance was obtained from the institutional review board, and participants provided informed consent before participation. All data were anonymized to maintain participant confidentiality.

Table 1 - Operative Time by FUE Technique:

This table presents the average operative time for each FUE technique. It highlights the relative efficiency of each method, with shorter times suggesting potentially less invasive and resource-intensive procedures.

Table 2. Graft Survival Rate by FUE Technique at 3 Months:

This table compares graft survival rates three months post-surgery, providing insights into the effectiveness of each technique in preserving graft viability.

Table 3. Postoperative Complications by FUE Technique

This table outlines the complication rates associated with each FUE technique. Lower complication rates indicate safer outcomes, while the type of complication suggests different risks inherent to each method

Table 4. Patient Satisfaction Scores by FUE Technique at 3 Months

This table presents patient satisfaction scores at three months post-surgery, reflecting perceived success and quality of each technique from the patient’s perspective.

Table 5. Average Number of Grafts Transplanted by FUE Technique

This table shows the average number of grafts transplanted per procedure, which indicates the procedural intensity and coverage each technique provides.

Table 6. Pain Score by FUE Technique (VAS Scale 0-10) at 1 Week

This table displays the pain scores reported by patients one week after surgery, reflecting postoperative comfort associated with each technique.

Table 7. Donor Site Healing Time by FUE Technique (in Days)

This table reports the healing time for the donor area after each technique, indicating the speed of recovery based on the method used.

Table 8. Density Achieved (Hair Follicles per cm²) by FUE Technique at 6 Months

This table provides the density of hair achieved per square centimeter six months post-surgery, illustrating the effectiveness of each method in achieving follicular coverage.

Table 9. Infection Rate by FUE Technique

This table details the infection rates observed for each FUE technique, reflecting the safety profile and hygiene effectiveness associated with each method.

Table 10. Return to Daily Activities by FUE Technique (in Days)

This table shows the average time taken for patients to resume daily activities post-surgery, indicating recovery speed and functional return associated with each technique.

 Figure 1 - Return to Daily Activities by FUE Technique: This chart illustrates the mean time taken for patients to resume daily activities, with Robotic-Assisted FUE showing the shortest recovery period.

This study offers a comprehensive analysis of three prominent Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) techniques: robotic-assisted, motorized, and manual methods. By examining metrics such as operative time, graft survival rate, postoperative complications, patient satisfaction, and recovery parameters, we aimed to identify the relative advantages and limitations associated with each technique.

Efficiency and Operative Time: Operative time is a critical metric in hair transplantation, as prolonged procedures can increase patient discomfort, fatigue, and surgeon error risk. Our findings demonstrated that motorized FUE required the shortest operative time, with an average of 5 hour 45 mins, followed by robotic-assisted FUE (7 hours 30 minutes) and manual (8 hours) [1]. This disagrees with other studies which showed that manual FUE, while skill-intensive, allows for efficient graft extraction when performed by experienced surgeons [2]. However, the longer duration associated with robotic-assisted FUE may reflect the method’s precision-driven approach, designed to optimize follicular unit identification and extraction accuracy [3]. Despite its time demands, robotic-assisted FUE has consistently shown good graft survival rates, suggesting that the trade-off in time may lead to improved outcomes in terms of graft viability and overall success [4].

Graft Survival Rates: Graft survival rate is a crucial measure of hair transplantation success. The findings indicated that the graft survival rate were similar for all the three FUE (88%) [5]. Owing to its advanced imaging capabilities, allowing for precise extraction and minimal follicular transection, robotic-assisted FUE is more enquired for by the patients [6]. Additionally, AI algorithms used in robotic systems help select optimal grafts based on scalp characteristics, which may further contribute to graft viability post-transplantation [7]. These results highlight the potential for robotic-assisted FUE to deliver superior outcomes, albeit at a higher operational cost and with longer procedure times [8]. However, motorized and manual FUE techniques offer practical alternatives, especially in resource-constrained settings where robotic systems may not be available [9].

Postoperative Complications and Patient Safety: Complication rates varied significantly among the techniques, with manual FUE showing a 20% complication rate, motorized FUE 15%, and robotic-assisted FUE 10% [10]. Notably, the most common complication across all techniques was minor folliculitis, which, while treatable, can impact patient satisfaction and recovery [11]. Robotic-assisted FUE’s lower complication rate is likely due to its precise graft extraction and minimal tissue trauma, factors known to reduce postoperative inflammation and infection risks [12]. Motorized FUE, while faster than robotic-assisted techniques, requires careful handling to avoid excessive heat generation, which can contribute to increased tissue trauma and complications [13]. Manual FUE, apart from longer operative time, exhibited a higher rate of infection, likely because manual techniques rely heavily on surgeon expertise and are subject to greater variability in execution [14]. These findings suggest that while each technique presents unique risks, all three may offer a safety wise similar approach for patients, especially those with higher sensitivity to infection or inflammation [15].

Patient Satisfaction and Perceived Outcomes: Patient satisfaction is a critical indicator of the overall success of hair restoration procedures. Our results indicated that satisfaction scores were highest among patients undergoing robotic-assisted FUE (4.7/5), followed by motorized FUE (4.3/5) and manual FUE (4.1/5) [16]. These findings suggest that patients value the outcomes achievable with robotic-assisted FUE, likely due to the technique’s precision, and reduced complication rates [17]. Satisfaction is closely tied to factors such as graft density, natural hairline formation, and postoperative recovery—all of which are optimized in robotic-assisted FUE [18]. However, patient satisfaction in motorized FUE was also notably high, likely due to the shorter recovery time and lower costs compared to robotic-assisted techniques [19]. These findings reinforce the importance of aligning patient expectations with procedural outcomes to achieve high satisfaction across different FUE techniques [20].

Recovery and Return to Daily Activities: Recovery time and the ability to return to daily activities are essential considerations for patients choosing hair transplantation. The study results showed that robotic-assisted FUE had the fastest recovery time, with patients resuming activities within five days on average, compared to seven days for motorized and nine days for manual FUE [21]. This expedited recovery in robotic-assisted FUE could be attributed to its minimally invasive nature, reduced tissue trauma, and efficient healing mechanisms facilitated by the precise extraction of follicular units [22]. Motorized FUE, while faster than manual techniques, involves some risk of excessive tissue manipulation, which may prolong recovery [23]. Manual FUE, although efficient in terms of operative time, involves more manual handling and potentially higher trauma, which can delay healing [24]. These findings indicate that while robotic-assisted FUE may offer an advantage in terms of recovery speed, both motorized and manual techniques remain viable options, especially when balancing time with cost and availability [25].

Technique Accessibility and Practical Considerations: While robotic-assisted FUE shows promising results, the cost and accessibility of robotic systems limit their widespread application, particularly in regions with limited resources [26]. Motorized and manual FUE techniques, which require less specialized equipment, offer practical alternatives that are more accessible to a broader patient population [27]. For clinics with limited budgets, manual and motorized FUE provide cost-effective solutions without compromising significantly on patient outcomes [28]. Moreover, motorized FUE has proven to be a middle ground, combining efficiency with affordability, making it suitable for a range of clinical settings [29]. Ultimately, selecting an FUE technique should consider patient needs, budget constraints, and availability of advanced technology to ensure balanced decision-making [30].

Limitations and Future Directions: While this study provides valuable insights, certain limitations must be acknowledged. The single-center design may limit generalizability, and the relatively small sample size may affect the robustness of conclusions. Furthermore, the follow-up duration of six months captures only short-term outcomes; longer-term studies are required to assess graft survival and complication rates over time. Future research could focus on multi-center studies with larger sample sizes to validate these findings and explore the cost-effectiveness of each FUE technique across diverse populations. Additionally, integrating patient-reported outcomes with objective clinical measures could offer a more comprehensive evaluation of FUE techniques, further informing patient-centered care practices.

Key Points for Conclusion

• Robotic-assisted FUE demonstrates higher patient satisfaction, with reduced complications and faster recovery, though it involves higher costs and longer operative times.
• Motorized FUE offers a balance between efficiency and accessibility, making it a viable option for clinics seeking a middle-ground approach.
• Manual FUE, while having greater operative time, has a higher complication rate but remains an accessible option in resource-limited settings.
• Selection of FUE technique should consider patient needs, clinical resources, and budget constraints, emphasizing individualized care in hair restoration.

Future studies should investigate long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness across diverse patient populations to enhance generalizability.

This study provides a detailed comparative analysis of robotic-assisted, motorized, and manual Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) techniques, each offering distinct advantages and limitations. The Robotic-assisted FUE, manual FUE and motorized FUE have demonstrated similar results but motorized FUE is comparatively faster than the rest. The patients value the outcomes achievable with robotic-assisted FUE and are more interested to go for it even if they are required to pay more. Patient satisfaction scores were highest in the robotic-assisted group. No severe adverse events were reported across techniques. All three FUE offer a safer approach for patients with regards to safety profile and hygiene effectiveness associated with each method. The graft survival rates were observed to be the same in Robotic-assisted FUE, manual and motorized techniques. In terms of the average number of grafts transplanted per procedure higher no of grafts can be taken in Motorized FUE. Robotic-assisted FUE stands out for its reduced complication risk, and faster patient recovery, making it the preferred option for maximizing precision and patient satisfaction. However, these benefits are tempered by the higher costs and extended operative times associated with robotic systems. Motorized FUE, in contrast, strikes a balance between efficiency and accessibility, providing a viable alternative that combines moderate graft survival with reduced operative time and fewer postoperative complications compared to manual techniques. Meanwhile, manual FUE remains advantageous in terms of cost-effectiveness, especially in low-resource settings, though it has a higher associated complication rate and longer recovery. The selection of an FUE technique should be guided by patient-specific factors, clinical resources, and budget constraints to ensure optimal outcomes tailored to individual needs. Future research should focus on multi-center studies with larger cohorts to further validate these findings across diverse populations. Additionally, long-term follow-up is needed to assess the sustainability of graft survival and patient satisfaction over time. Continued advancements in FUE technology and technique optimization hold the potential to enhance outcomes, accessibility, and cost-effectiveness, supporting broader adoption of hair restoration treatments worldwide.

1. Sharma R, Ranjan A. Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) Hair Transplant: Curves Ahead. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2019 Dec;18(4):509-517. doi: 10.1007/s12663-019-01245-6. Epub 2019 May 28. PMID: 31624428; PMCID: PMC6795649.
2. Kerure AS, Deshmukh N, Agrawal S, Patwardhan NG. Follicular Unit Extraction [FUE] - One Procedure, Many Uses. Indian Dermatol Online J.2021 May 12;12(3):381-388. doi: 10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_522_20. PMID: 34211903; PMCID: PMC8202483.
3. Memon R, Avram M. The pros and cons of follicular unit extraction (FUE) versus elliptical donor harvesting (FUT). J Cosmet Laser Ther.2022 Nov 17;24(6-8):63-65. doi: 10.1080/14764172.2022.2088795. Epub 2022 Aug 30. PMID: 36040012.
4. Harris JA. Follicular unit extraction. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am.2013 Aug;21(3):375-84. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2013.05.002. PMID: 24017979.
5. Garg A, Garg S. Overview of Follicular Extraction. Indian J Plast Surg. 2021 Dec 20;54(4):456-462. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1739244. PMID: 34984085; PMCID: PMC8719976.
6. Park JH, You SH, Kim NR. Nonshaven Follicular Unit Extraction: Personal Experience. Ann Plast Surg. 2019 Mar;82(3):262-268. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001679. PMID: 30418195; PMCID: PMC6392215.
7. Zontos G, Williams KL Jr, Nikiforidis G. Minimizing injury to the donor area in follicular unit extraction (FUE) harvesting. J Cosmet Dermatol.2017 Mar;16(1):61-69. doi: 10.1111/jocd.12267. Epub 2016 Aug 24. PMID: 27557792.
8. Collins K, Avram MR. Hair Transplantation and Follicular Unit Extraction. Dermatol Clin.2021 Jul;39(3):463-478. doi: 10.1016/j.det.2021.04.003. PMID: 34053598.
9. Roga G, Chouhan K, Singh K. An Economical Innovative Use of a Dental Burr to Sharpen and Reuse Follicular Unit Extraction (FUE) Punches for Hair Transplantation. J Cutan Aesthet Surg.2022 Jul-Sep;15(3):303-304. doi: 10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_152_21. PMID: 36561416; PMCID: PMC9764945.
10. Epstein GK, Epstein J, Nikolic J. Follicular Unit Excision: Current Practice and Future Developments. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am.2020 May;28(2):169-176. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2020.01.006. PMID: 32312503.
11. Zito PM, Raggio BS. Hair Transplantation. 2024 Feb 12. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan–. PMID: 31613520.
12. Avram MR, Watkins S. Robotic Hair Transplantation. Facial Plast Surg Clin North Am.2020 May;28(2):189-196. doi: 10.1016/j.fsc.2020.01.011. PMID: 32312506.
13. Yaseen U, Ahmed S, Ahmed M. Beard Reconstruction. Int J Trichology. 2021 Nov-Dec;13(6):4-8. doi: 10.4103/ijt.ijt_40_19. Epub 2021 Nov 22. PMID: 34934294; PMCID: PMC8647705.
14. Di M, Liu Q, Liu C, Zhu S, Jiang B, Wu W. Follicular unit extraction megasession treatment of high-grade androgenetic alopecia in Asians: Introducing novel principles for surgical design. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023 Dec;22(12):3395-3404. doi: 10.1111/jocd.15858. Epub 2023 Jun 13. PMID: 37310421.
15. Jiménez-Acosta F, Ponce-Rodríguez I. Follicular Unit Extraction for Hair Transplantation: An Update. Actas Dermosifiliogr.2017 Jul-Aug;108(6):532-537. English, Spanish. doi: 10.1016/j.ad.2017.02.015. Epub 2017 May 5. PMID: 28483047.
16. Harris JA. Follicular unit extraction. Facial Plast Surg.2008 Nov;24(4):404-13. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1102904. Epub 2008 Nov 25. PMID: 19034817.
17. Dua A, Dua K. Follicular unit extraction hair transplant. J Cutan Aesthet Surg.2010 May;3(2):76-81. doi: 10.4103/0974-2077.69015. PMID: 21031064; PMCID: PMC2956961.
18. Mohmand MH, Ahmad M. Transection rate at different areas of scalp during follicular unit extraction/excision (FUE).J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020 Jul;19(7):1705-1708. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13191. Epub 2019 Nov 19. PMID: 31743575.
19. Bayramoglu A, Erdogan K, Urhan O, Keskinoz EN, Acikel Elmas M, Hayran M, Arbak S. Hair diameter measurements for planning follicular unit extraction surgery (FUE): Is there a correlation between the micrometer caliper and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) findings? J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Mar;21(3):1086-1092. doi: 10.1111/jocd.14185. Epub 2021 Jun 2. PMID: 33905616.
20. Ahmad M, Mohmand MH. Effect of surgeon's workload on rate of transection during follicular unit excision/extraction (FUE). J Cosmet Dermatol.2020 Mar;19(3):720-724. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13078. Epub 2019 Jul 17. PMID: 31317641.
21. Xiong T, Guo L, Lang Z, Ou Y. Application of follicular unit extraction technology to remove oral hair. J Cosmet Dermatol.2022 Apr;21(4):1764-1765. doi: 10.1111/jocd.14302. Epub 2021 Jun 26. PMID: 34132030.
22. Kim DY, Choi JP, Hwang YJ, Kim HS. Hidden Transection of Follicular Unit Extraction in Donor Site. Dermatol Surg.2016 Apr;42(4):485-8. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000631. PMID: 27035500.
23. Garg AK, Garg S. Donor Harvesting: Follicular Unit Excision. J Cutan Aesthet Surg. 2018 Oct-Dec;11(4):195-201. doi: 10.4103/JCAS.JCAS_123_18. PMID: 30886473; PMCID: PMC6371717.
24. Bernstein RM, Wolfeld MB. Robotic Follicular Unit Graft Selection. Dermatol Surg.2016 Jun;42(6):710-4. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000742. PMID: 27176871.
25. Li KT, Qu Q, Fan ZX, Wang J, Liu F, Hu ZQ, Miao Y. Clinical experience on follicular unit extraction megasession for severe androgenetic alopecia. J Cosmet Dermatol.2020 Jun;19(6):1481-1486. doi: 10.1111/jocd.13156. Epub 2019 Sep 17. PMID: 31529675.
26. Avram MR, Watkins SA. Robotic follicular unit extraction in hair transplantation. Dermatol Surg.2014 Dec;40(12):1319-27. doi: 10.1097/DSS.0000000000000191. PMID: 25418806.
27. Sabanciogullarindan S, Tunc S. Cicatricial eyebrow restoration using the follicular unit extraction technique.J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Mar;21(3):1098-1105. doi: 10.1111/jocd.14226. Epub 2021 Oct 26. PMID: 34114737.
28. Rose PT. Advances in Hair Restoration.Dermatol Clin. 2018 Jan;36(1):57-62. doi: 10.1016/j.det.2017.09.008. PMID: 29108547.
29. Bicknell LM, Kash N, Kavouspour C, Rashid RM. Follicular unit extraction hair transplant harvest: a review of current recommendations and future considerations. Dermatol Online J. 2014 Mar 17;20(3):doj_21754. PMID: 24656268.
30. Humayun Mohmand M, Ahmad M. Effect of Follicular Unit Extraction on the Donor Area. World J Plast Surg. 2018 May;7(2):193-197. PMID: 30083502; PMCID: PMC6066700.et l